An Unpublished Egyptian Composite Bow in the Brooklyn Museum

Author(s): Wallace E. McLeod

Source: American Journal of Archaeology , Oct., 1958, Vol. 62, No. 4 (Oct., 1958), pp.
397-401
Published by: Archaeological Institute of America

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/502063

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.com/stable/502063?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to American Journal of Archaeology

This content downloaded from

142.103.160.110 on Tue, 25 Aug 2020 18:15:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An Unpublished Egyptian Composite Bow
in the Brooklyn Museum'
WALLACE E. McLEOD

1LATES 108-109

HISTORY OF THE TYPE

chariot, the use of bronze, helmets, and bo
mour, etc.the
Throughout the Old and Middle Kingdoms, by the Hyksos.' Where the Hyk
type of bow regular in Egypt was the tained it is unknown. Perhaps they got it fro
usual African
first wave
arcus, the simple stave of wood2-sometimes withof Indo-Europeans erupting fro
steppes;6
a single curve, sometimes with a double curveor perhaps it had been in Mesopo
(pl.
already
io8, fig. I).3 But from the Eighteenth for on,
Dynasty a millennium, having been invent
the Sumerians'
composite (i.e. laminated non-homogeneous) bows or introduced by the Semites.8
Whatever
occur.' It seems agreed that the composite bow was its ultimate source, this new bo
introduced from Asia together with the horse-and-
been equated by many with the "angular"
NOTE: This paper owes much to the helpful Kulturgeschichte,
criticism of Mr. I (1923) Taf. 80; H. Bonnet, Die Wa
John D. Cooney of the Brooklyn Museum, Professor Sterling
Volker des alten Orients (Leipzig I926) p. 136. Actua
Dow of Harvard University, and Professor oldest example
W. E. Staples of (MMA No. 28.9.9) comes from the s
the University of Toronto. I also wish to thank the Tech-
I7th Dynasty Tomb; it may not be as old as the tomb
nician of the Brooklyn Museum, Mr. Antonycertainly
Giambalvo, who
antedates the causeway of Hat-shepsut built o
5 First
patiently explained what I was seeing through the suggested by Wainwright, op.cit. 197, who t
microscope.
Miss Evelyn Williams of the Metropolitan Museum of Art
that the ease un-
with which the Hyksos are said to have co
sparingly aided and guided my research inEgyptNew York;
was dueMr.to the superiority of their composite bow
William Stephenson Smith of the Museum of lessFine Arts of-
powerful Egyptian self-bows. cf. also Albright-Men
fered encouraging assistance in Boston. JNES I (1942) 229; H. E. Winlock, The Rise and Fal
Middle Kingdom in Thebes (N.Y. 1947) 158; T. Sive
1 The literature on this type of bow is not extensive:
bergh (inH. Bal- conservative article) JEA 37 (1951)
a very
four, "On a Remarkable Ancient Bow and Arrows Believed
Toynbee, A to be of History 10 (1954) 202.
Study
of Assyrian Origin," JRAI 26 (1896/97) 210-220;6Frank
obiterEdward
dixit Toynbee, loc.cit.
Brown, "A Recently Discovered Compound Bow," SemKond
7 Desiderated by v. Luschan, Verh. Berl. Anthrop. G
9 (I937) I-Io; G. Brunton, "Syrian Connections of a 231-232.
(1899) Composite
Bow," ASAE 38 (1938) 251-252; C. J. Longman, "The
8Ed. Bows"Sumerier und Semiten in Babylonien
Meyer,
of the Ancient Assyrians and Egyptians," JRAI 24 (I894/95)
Berl 49- (1906) Abh. 3, pp. 88, 113; followi
(Phil. Hist.)
57; F. v. Luschan, "Ein zusammengesetzter Bogen
L. W.aus der A
King, Zeit
History of Sumer and Akkad (N.Y. 19g
Rhamses II," Verth. Berl. Anthrop. Gesellsch.B.(1893) 266-271;
Hrozn', Ancient History of Western Asia, India, an
H. Mebert, "Der Assyrische Angularbogen (N.Y.
als Kriegs- undDenied (with cogent arguments) b
1953) 95.
Jagdwaffe," Ztschr. f. hist. Waft. u. Kostiimk.Woolley, The96-
15 (I937/39) Sumerians (Oxford 1928) 54. Composi
Ioo; Eugene Robinson, "The Egyptian Composite Bow,"
are not Arch-
specifically mentioned in these works; but s
ery (National Field Archery Assoc.) (1951,evidence
Apr.) 4-5; G.includes
cited A. the victory-stele of Naram-Sin, t
Wainwright, "Ancient Survivals in Modern Africa," Bull. soc.
of Hurin-Sheikh-Khan, and copper bow-tips from pre-d
Ur-all of which are thought to refer to composite b
sultanieh de geographie, 9 (19I9) I09-II5, 193-197.
references
2 The wooden bow is very frequent in Egyptian seem v.
remains; relevant.
Luschan had studied some 80 specimens, see Verh.
9 Berl. Anthrop.
Suggested by Longman, Wainwright, Brown, opp.cit
Gesellsch. (1899) 227-228. To the examples usually cited,
posed by add: op.cit. The suggestion is tacitly ign
Balfour,
Boston MFA Access. No. 13.3569 (Middle Kingdom); New York,Bogen und Bogenschiitze bei den G
A. Schaumberg,
MMA Access. No. 86.1.36-37, 14.1.406, 27.3.13, 12.181.223-
(Niirnberg
225, 12.182.51, 17.2.8, 19.3.34-36, 129,200, 26.3.293 (all191o);
Mid- E. Bulanda, Bogen und Pfeil bei den
des Altertums (Abh. arch. epigr. Sem. Wien, 15.2 [19
dle Kingdom), 36.3.211-212 (New Empire); Bonnet,
Toronto, ROMA
Die Waflen der Vdlker des alten Orients (Leipzi
Access. No. B.2472, B.2473, B.2475 (Middle Kingdom).
W. Wolf, Die Bewafinung des altdgyptischen Heeres
a The wooden bows reproduced in the accompanying platethey all treat both of the remains of
I926), although
are in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New iteYork.
bowsPlate i08,
and of pictures of angular bows.
fig. Ia (the single curved bow) is Access. No. Ludwig
14.1.406Keimer
(from offers an explanation for at least s
Thebes, Sheik Abd el-Kurna, Dynasty XI); Plate lo8, fig.
the angular Ib
bows, ZAeS 72 (1936) 121-I28, viz. that
(double curved bow) is Access No. 36.3.212 (Thebes,
formed Abd
by joining with a wooden plug two of the p
el-Kurna, Dynasty XVIII). The latter has beenstraight
partly horns
restored
of the Oryx-beisa. (I am indebted to Mr.
by Museum technicians. v. Bothmer of the Brooklyn Museum for directing me
4 Wainwright, op.cit. III; Wreszinski, Atlas zur altaegyptische
reference).

This content downloaded from

142.103.160.110 on Tue, 25 Aug 2020 18:15:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 398 WALLACE E. McLEOD [AJA 62
which makes its appearance and drawn bow, had a almost
convex curve. When the
simulta
in Egyptian painting.'" bow was strung,
Since the arms, which had no rigid has
discussion
sulted in agreement, ears, fell back
the almost straight. . . ."" It upon
arguments has been wh
equation is based merit a full statement. T established from the paintings and reliefs both of
two in number: Egypt and of Assyria that this bow when drawn
(i) Chronological: the angular bow appears inlost its angular appearance, and became round, with
art approximately at the same time as the earliesta semicircular curve extending right through the
extant archaeological remains of composite bows. griple (pl. Io8, fig. 3)-
(2) Morphological: the bows as we have them Some time between iooo and 500 B.c., the nomads
(i.e. unstrung and reflexed) all have an inwardof southern Siberia developed a new type of com-
angular bend at the grip. When the arms were bent posite bow, in which the ears and grip of the bow
back and braced, the angle would of necessity bewere stiffened by applying strips of unyielding
retained, but now the apex of the angle would be bone." As far as can be ascertained from practising
away from the string-as in the paintings. More-toxophilites, these features would improve the bow
over, in several paintings there are pictures of bow and make it more efficient.s8 The Iranians, it is
factories; the unbraced bows hanging on the walls believed, brought a variety of this new bow south
(pl. io8, fig. 2) are similar in shape to the extantwith them from the Oxus regions;'9 it was the
composite bows.'1 regular bow of the Medians and of the Archae-
These arguments tend to show that there was menid Empire.20 Precisely by means of superior
some basis for the equation. bowyery, one may imagine, the "bear" of Daniel 7.5
If so, this type of composite bow was the dom-was able to devour the "three ribs" of Lydia (547),
inant arm throughout the Middle East for the mil-
Babylonia (538), and Egypt (525) with facility."2
lennium which began about 1500 and ended about The subject states were quick to learn; they adopted
500 B.c. For the angular bow appears frequently the Persian bow. The angular bow vanished from
in Hittite Art (both of the Great Empire in the Mesopotamia and Egypt with the Persian con-
x4th/i3th century'2 and of the city states down to quest."
the 8th century)"' as well as in Assyrian reliefs
PROVENIENCE OF THIS SPECIMEN
from the 9th century on."
The peculiar angular appearance when braced Of the thirty-odd Egyptian composite bow
but not drawn is due to the construction: "The tant, only two have been at all adequately
stiffened grip, shaped to the sweep of the strung lished.28 The first Egyptian composite bow ev
10o Wainwright, op.cit. I 14, n. I, lists monuments ofus,
tells Amenho-
"is intended to facilitate the reversing in string
tep II, Amenhotep III, Seti I, Rameses II, Rameses
bow." III, all with
Perhaps more impressive are the graphs and expla
angular bows. To these could be added e.g., Thothmes IV, ILN
on pp. 145-147 of Klopsteg's Turkish Archery and th
(Feb. Io, 1923) 195. posite Bow (2nd ed., Evanston 1947) which show the eff
1x Wreszinski, op.cit. (note 4) Taf. 152; cf. also ibid.
having rigid Taf.
ears in a reflexed bow; such a bow store
8o-8i; Moret, RA ser. 3, 34 (1899) 237. energy and is easier to hold at full draw than a bow w
12 Garstang, The Land of the Hittites, p. II9 (stone
more from
or less homogeneous throughout its length, i.e., a b
Marash); pl. 54 (Karabel); M. Riemschneider, Die Welt der
no stiffening.
Hethiter (Stuttgart 1954) Taf. 6 (Hemite), Taf. 7 (Gezbeli),
19 Brown, op.cit. 7; and following him, M. Emeneau, Proc.
Taf. 49 (Malatia). PhilSoc 97 (i953) 84.
20 See refs.
13 v. Luschan, Mitt. Orient. Samml. Kgl. Mus. Berl. Brown, op.cit., pp. 6-7. The Yrzi bow, discovered
14 (1911)
Taf. 6I (Sinjirli); M. Vieyra, Hittite Art (London 1955),
by the Yale fig.
Dura Expedition at Baghouz and described by
97 (Tell-Halaf); C. W. Ceram, The Secret of the Hittites
Brown, (N.Y.
is of this type. It does indeed have bone-stiffened ears;
1956) p. I & pl. xl (Karatepe). but the grip is stiffened not with bone-strips but by reinforcing
with hard-wood.
14 Mebert, op.cit. 96, n. I, lists 9 representative reliefs and
objects dating from ca. 900 down to the reign of21Ashurbanipal.
One traditional interpretation of the prophecy.
15 Brown, op.cit. 4. 22 Brown, op.cit. 7; Mebert, op.cit. xoo.
16 Bonnet, op.cit. (note 8) 141. 23 Actually, twenty-eight such bows are known to me at pres-
17 See Gy. Liszl6, Acta Archaeologica Academiaeent,Scientiarum
viz.: (i) Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Aegyptische Abteilung,
Hungaricae, I (1951) 99, n. 54, who cites as hisNo.
authority A. by
4712; described P. v. Luschan and Longman, opp.citt. (This
Okladnikov, KS 8 (1940) xo6-112. bow is no longer in Berlin. Franz Poellnitz of the Museum in-
forms
18 A stiffened grip, we are told, is desirable me per
because "alitt.,
bowAugust 24, 1957, that during the Second
which 'bends in the hand' is uncomfortable and jolty
World War to
theshoot
bow was moved for safekeeping to the Kunst-
with and casts badly" (Longman, in [Badminton] gutlagerArchery
of the Castle at Celle, West Germany, where it is
[London 1894], p. 6o). The stiffened ear, thestill
samein storage.)
authority(2) Oxford, Pitt-Rivers Museum, labelled "d. d.

This content downloaded from

142.103.160.110 on Tue, 25 Aug 2020 18:15:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1958] AN UNPUBLISHED EGYPTIAN COMPOSITE BOW 399
Much ofdescribed
be discovered, oddly, has never been the bark coveringin
and nearly all the
sinew backing has disappeared;
full. It sheds some light on the development of the and in one arm the
species.
This bow is now in the Brooklyn Museum (Ac-
cess. No. 37.1835E)--though it is not on display.
The history of its finding is irretrievably lost. It was
found by Henry Abbott, M.D., an English physi-
cian resident in Cairo, some time between 1832 and
1843;2' the place of its finding is reported as Sak-
kara.25 Scientific archaeology was still in the future:
the collector did not keep a field-book recording
the exact date and place of his finds. Abbott him-
self tells us26 that he was often present at the
opening of tombs and obtained much of his col-
lection by this means.
The bow was brought to America as part of the
Abbott Collection in 1852; the Collection was ac-
quired by the New York Historical Society in
186027 (the bow being catalogued as Abbott Coll.
No. 42I.IA), and was purchased for the Brooklyn
Museum in 1948,28 having been on loan there since
I937.
The bow was found with a leather quiver." By
1915 the quiver had managed to pick up four ar-
rows which did not originally belong to it.3?
DESCRIPTION (pl. 109, figs. 4, 5, 6)
The bow measures 1.372 m. from tip to tip in a
straight line, 1.452 m. following the curve of the
belly. These measurements are very close to those
of Balfour's bow in Oxford, for which the corre-
sponding measurements are I.35 m. and 1.45 m.
This is considerably longer than either the Berlin
bow (49" tip to tip as restored) or the Tutankh-
amun bows (44" to 49").
H. Balfour, Jan. 1896"; described by Balfour, op.cit. (3) Cairo
Museum, at least 20 specimens: J. d'E. no. 31389 (vid. Brunton,
op.cit.); Cat. gen. vol. 3, no. 24120; old number 4725 (men-
tioned by Wreszinski, op.cit., Taf. 80, n. 4); and 17 bows from
the tomb of Tutankhamun, a few pictured and described in
Carter-Mace, The Tomb &c. I (x923) plates LxxvI--LxxvI;
3 (933) I38ff; also ILN (Oct. 20, 1928) 712-715; (Oct. 12,
1929) 626. (4) New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Access.
No. 25.3.303 (fragments of two or probably three bows); 25-3.
304; 28.9.9. (5) The bow hereinafter described.
24 These dates are arrived at indirectly. The terminus a quo is
given by the fact that Abbott "always spoke of his collection as
the result of twenty years' residence there (sc. Cairo) and he left
Egypt with it, bound for New York, in I852" (Caroline Ransom
Williams, N.Y. Hist. Soc. Quart. Bull. 4 [1920/2I] 8-9). The
terminus ante quem comes from the colophon ("Cairo, 1843,
Joseph Bonomi") of the first Catalogue of the Collection (publ.
Cairo, I846).
25 So both the Bonomi Catalogue (1846) p. 6, and the New
York Historical Society Catalogue (1915) P. 27. This location
does not shed much light on the date of the bow, since remains
This content downloaded from
142.103.160.110 on Tue, 25 Aug 2020 18:15:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
horn has sprung away from the wood. Conse-
quently it is possible to obtain a more accurate
picture of the construction than would be possible
if the bow were in perfect condition.
The central core is a piece of reddish-brown
wood"1 extending unbroken throughout the length.
It is shaped to the bow, i.e. it has the angular in-
ward bend at the grip; about o.o2 m. from either
end there is an abrupt reflex bend; presumably this
served to hold the string from slipping. At the apex
of the grip, this core measures .021 m. broad x .oo9
m. thick; it tapers very little throughout most of
the bow. 0.4 m. from the grip it is still .oi8 m. x
.009 m. From there it tapers more quickly; by
0.6 m. from the grip it is .oio m. x .005 m.; and
beyond the bend at the tip, it measures only .oo8 m.
x .003 m.
Along the back of this central core (i.e., the con-
vex side at the grip; the side away from the archer
when he shoots) is a second piece of wood, also
reddish-brown-presumably serving as reinforce-
ment at the grip; it extends .i6i m. along one arm,
.185 m. along the other; it is .o02 m. broad through-
out, and tapers in thickness from .004 m. at the grip
to nothing at either end.
Along each side of the bow runs a bevelled
wooden side-strip, of reddish-brown wood,32 .003 m.
thick, and in general about .003 m. greater in width
than the thickness of the core or core-plus-reinforce-
ment. This overlap means that there is a shallow
channel running the length of the bow on both the
back and the belly. On one side (arbitrarily called
the "left") this strip runs unbroken the length of
from Sakkara cover the period from pre-Dynastic to Roman.
26 Quoted in the introduction to the 1915 Catalogue.
27 C. R. Williams, op.cit. (note 24) pp. 8-14.
28 J. D. Cooney, Bull. Brooklyn Mus. Io, 3 (Spring 1949) 17-
23.
29 Bonomi Catalogue, p. 6; 19I5 Catalogue, p. 27; in both
cases described as "A bow of curious structure, with the leather
case that contained it and attached it to the War Chariot." How-
ever the leather container is patently a quiver rather than a bow-
case; it was so described by Caroline Ransom Williams in (un-
published) notes in the Brooklyn Museum.
30o 915 Catalogue, loc.cit., compared with the Bonomi Cata-
logue, p. 15, #92 (apparently the same arrows), "From Thebes."
The discrepancy was pointed out by C. R. Williams in her (un-
published) notes.
1a Specific identification of ancient woods is possible only
after microscopic examination by a botanist; such was not fea-
sible at this time.
32 Brown, op.cit., p. 6. fig. 2.1, gives diagrams which are in-
tended to represent sections of this bow; he unaccountably calls
these side-strips "horn."
 400 WALLACE E. McLEOD [AlA 62
the bow. The other wash." At any ("right")
side rate, some of the Tutankhamun
was br
bows were gilded.
two places in antiquity; the joints are fill
ancient pitch.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Along the channel formed by the side-st
the belly side runs a The shape of
layer oftheyellowish
Brooklyn bow ishorn
typica
.003 m. thick on an Egyptian average; composite
itsbows (cf. pl. io8,
outer face fig. 7a
h
planed down, still exhibiting It has been thoughtthe
that bows of this type
parallel s
as from a file. The horn is not one continuous angular bows-are invariably of Asiatic provenien
piece, but has ancient (pitch-filled) splices at Von
two Luschan believed that the Berlin bow (T
points. The longest piece, the one covering the grip,
ban, i9th Dynasty) was either the property
Hittite war-captive from Rameses II's great c
is some 0.7 m. long; it is .021 m. broad throughout,
paigns or the property of an Asiatic mercena
fitting the channel in which it is placed. The horn
strips on either end are respectively 0.31 m.Egypt.
and Balfour suggested that his bow (Theb
0.26 m. in length, and taper in breadth to fit their
26th Dynasty) was a trophy from the Assyrian
channels. The horn fails at 0.08 m. and 0.125vasion.
m. Brunton pointed out37 that one of the C
bows (Qurna, earlier i8th Dynasty) had b
from the respective tips; the break appears modern.
Along the back in the channel formed by the buried with one Se-aa, a name which seems t
Syrian. And other bows have been found to
side-strips there presumably ran a strip of another
material; of this, only o.o9 m. remain, on one tainarm white birch (bark or wood)38 and ash,39 ne
of which grow as far south as Egypt. Our
right at the grip. The substance is so covered with
ancient pitch that its appearance is virtually hidden.
sheds no light on this problem.
The edge which is exposed at one end seems It to is a well known fact that a composite bo
have a wood-type grain.33 This strip is 0.021valuable,
m. not on account of its materials, but
broad by .003 m. deep. cause of the amount of time required in its m
Above this last strip are traces of fiber (pre- facture (from five to ten years). Perhaps thi
sumably animal sinew) imbedded in the thick plainscov- why composite bows are so much rar
ering of pitch. And at the grip on one side, back,Egyptian remains than wooden bows.
and belly are traces of coarser fibers-apparently Of the two other composite bows hitherto
animal tendon binding the grip. The whole bow lished (pl. io8, fig. 8), the Oxford bow be
retains ample remains of a bark covering, reddish greater resemblance than does the Berlin bow to
in colour, identified as cherry bark.34 Microscopic
Brooklyn one, both in general dimensions an
examination of the grip showed that outsideconstruction.
the The chief similarity is the placing
horn there were successive layers of pitch, bark, a strip of wood on either side of the central
tendon, bark, tendon, totalling under a millimeterIf the pitch-covered strip along the belly of Br
in depth. lyn No. 37.1835E should indeed turn out to be h
Microscopic study also revealed that the whole instead of wood, the similarity would be gre
bow was dotted with minute flecks of gold; these However, our knowledge of this type is stil
were thickest on the places where the ancient barkmeager to justify dating the Brooklyn bow o
was preserved. Though there are also traces of gold
basis of its closer resemblance to the 26th Dyna
on the naked horn and wood, it can be argued example
that than to the 19th Dynasty one."0 Invest
they were spread thither from the bark by modern tion of further specimens may clarify the situa
handling. It is not impossible, therefore, that the Since examples of the early types of compo
bow was originally covered with gold leaf or a gold
bow are so rare, each specimen described con
88 Both Brown, loc.cit., and Caroline Ransom 3rWilliams
op.cit. (in
unpublished notes in the Brooklyn Museum) took this back-strip
38 See note of Dr. Elmer Drew Merrill, of the Bronx Botanical
to be horn.
Gardens, concerning MMA No. 25.3.303-304, 28.9.9, on file
34 1915 Catalogue, p. 427, #421. in the MMA.
35 It is a less likely (as well as less interesting) possibility 39 A. Lucas. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries (3rd
ed., London 1948) 490.
that the bow picked up the gold flecks during a sojourn at some
(modern?) time in the establishment of a gold-leafer. 40 Brown, op.cit. p. 4, n. 7, dates the Brooklyn bow to the
36 One example on display in the Metropolitan Museum of Assyrian or Saite Period; but on what grounds I have been un-
Art (Access. No. 28.9.9) has been incorrectly restored with able
a to ascertain.
stiff straight grip between the two curving reflexed arms.

This content downloaded from

142.103.160.110 on Tue, 25 Aug 2020 18:15:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1958] AN UNPUBLISHED EGYPTIAN COMPOSITE BOW 401
is admittedly
utes something to the developmental history composite;48
of the it was probably of this
genus. The Brooklyn bow may therefore prove
same angular shape, of as the legend seems
inasmuch
to antedate the advent of either the "Persian" or
interest to Classicists as well as to Orientalists. For
while the indigenous Cretan bow was wooden,"' "Scythian" types.44 At any rate, dyKrika and
individual weapons of legend are composite. Thus,
KaCLT1JXa, applied to Tra, could as readily mean
on Greek coins and vases Herakles is regularly"angular" as "curving."
equipped with a bow of the "Scythian" (com-
posite) shape.42 The great bow of Odysseus as well AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES, ATHENS

41C. J. Longman, (Badminton) Archery (London I894) 80- the following considerations: the bow of Odysseus
pends upon
contained
81; A. J. Reinach, DarSag, s.v. "Sagittarii," 4 (1909) Ioo5; E. J. horn (Od. 21.395), was reflexed (21.11,59), was lia-
Forsdyke, Proc. Soc. Antiq. 32 (1919/20) 156. ble to be devoured by grubs (21.395), was kept in a bow-case
(21.54), was warmed and greased to soften it (21.176-185),
Miss Lorimer's vigorous assertion (Homer and the Monuments
[London 1950] 282) that the Cretans used the composite bow
required an effort and knack in stringing, and was left at home
seems to be based on a misreading of r6Eots for roe6paaaL during the
in war (probably because it was affected by damp).
Xen. An. 3.4.17. 44 The legend of Odysseus' angular bow could be (pace
42 First pointed out in regard to Cretan coins by Sir Arthur
Gabriel Germain) of Hittite origin--just as are, e.g., many of
Evans (Longman, loc.cit.); extended to all Greek coins thebymore
E. S.bloodthirsty Greek myths (R. D. Barnett, IHS 65 [19451
G. Robinson and to vase-painting by Sir John Beazley (Forsdyke,
Ioo-Ioi et alii saepe), the genre of ship-catalogues (Viktor Burr,
op.cit.). Klio Beih. 49 [11944), and one aspect of Apollo (B. Hrozn',
43 Suggested by Henry Balfour, JRAI I9 (1889/9o) 226-227; AO 8 [1936]) 192-197).
amplified JRAI 51 (1921) 290-291, 301-304. The judgment de-

This content downloaded from

142.103.160.110 on Tue, 25 Aug 2020 18:15:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MC LEOD PLATE IO8

Fig. I. Egyptian wooden bows, showing single and double curve

(courtesy, Metropolitan Museum of Art)

Fig. 2. Bow factory, fromn Tomb of Dynasty XVIII (W. Wreszinski,

Atlas zur altdgyptische Kulturgeschichte, 1.152)
~t~
*'ZI ,?:9
*?;r:"s
r
r r
r
r

r r ,r
\-J

?I IJr i ;)
/"

H?J O

11

Fig. 3. Typical angular bow, showing shape

when unstrung, braced and drawn (F. E. I
Brown, SemKond 9 [1937] 4, fig- 1.I)

ib

b
a

Fig. 8. Sections through other Egyptian bows

(actual size). a: arm of Oxford bow; b: grip and Fig. 7. Other Egyptian bow
arm of Berlin bow (von Luschan, Mitt.Orient. (C. J. Longman, IRAI 24
Samml.Kgl.Mus.Berl. 14 [1911] 352, Abb.258c,d) Oxford bow (H. Balfour, IRA

This content downloaded from

142.103.160.110 on Tue, 25 Aug 2020 18:15:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
PLATE 109 MC LEOD

Fig. 4. The Brooklyn bow (courtesy, Brooklyn Museum)

2

??11?1

3 2 1

Fig. 5. Brooklyn bow, schem

"left"); B: back; C: "right"
of file scoriations on hor

W. E. M. dW.

1i
2 3
Fig. 6. Sections through Brooklyn bow (actual size). i: grip; 2: middle arm; 3: upper arm (black = horn;
diagonal hatching = wood; cross-hatching = wood [or perhaps horn]; stippling = sinew and tendon)
This content downloaded from
142.103.160.110 on Tue, 25 Aug 2020 18:15:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms